wormsfandomcom-20200213-history
Forum:About Danuhau's status
I had originally intended to create a forum discussing this topic months ago, but the general attitude towards the events which made me think it necessary suggested that such a forum would have done nothing at the time. However, given Boggy B's recent page= }} block and change of heart on the matter, I figured it was time for this forum to be created so that this issue could finally be discussed in the proper location (and hopefully by the proper people, too!). So, without further ado... At best At worst At best, I believe that Danuhau has not used his admin rights particularly well in the ~8 months he has had them. At worst, I believe that having him in the role of admin/bureaucrat here has caused more harm to this wiki than good. As a result, I believe he should no longer possess these rights. My reasons for these assertions are as follows: #For starters, although it is not my intent to somehow imply that the positive contributions Danuhau made on this wiki were not helpful, the majority of the contributions he has been making do not require admin rights, nor are they enhanced by having admin rights. #*To elaborate, Danuhau has diff=prev&oldid=10389}} made diff=prev&oldid=10551}} exactly Wiki|diff=13010&oldid=9984}} four Wiki|diff=13012&oldid=13010}} edits (beyond those necessary for setting up ) which required admin rights to make. Of those, all of the changes made were minor: two were rearrangements of elements in the top navbar, and two were changes to the main page. Of the latter two, the former was a bit of an unusual choice (the news template (which, despite its name, appears to have served as a bit of a "call to action" for visitors to the wiki) he removed no longer existed, but this was because he page=Template:News}} moved it to a new title), while the latter technically did nothing (double curly braces (syntax: ) assume the template namespace by default, so adding "Template:" there was redundant). Every other edit Danuhau made on this wiki could have easily been made without admin rights. #While we're on the subject of editing, Danuhau has over 1100 edits now. This presumably indicates a large amount of effort which went into improving the wiki. To an extent, this is true. However, considering strings of edits like Can Wally|diff=13048&oldid=12152}} this, diff=13815&oldid=13794}} this, and diff=13035&oldid=11998}} this (the first instances of such that I found in Danuhau's , which all could have been made in half as many edits each (or even in one edit each)), it appears that Danuhau believes in quantity of edits over quality. In most cases, this would be a bit bizarre and inefficient, but not particularly noteworthy. However, Danuhau also diff=13099&oldid=13037}} added that he passed 1000 edits as an item on the front page wikinews feed (incidentally, he also added an entry to said news feed about diff=13037&oldid=11193}} passing 1000 achievement points). To me, this makes the instances where a large number of minor edits are made to a single page in a short period of time look like edit farming, a bad-faith practice which is generally not looked upon too favorably on wikis. #As for the issues which I contend actively harm the wiki: first, there are the particulars of Danuhau's blocking practices. ( , for convenience) #*Now, it is not particularly difficult to block a user; what is difficult is knowing when to block, why to block, and for how long a user should be blocked. Ideally, as mentioned in this staff blog, blocks should generally only be given out if it is believed that the block will prevent damage to the wiki. Beyond blocking users for vandalism, I do not believe Danuhau has good enough judgement to be trusted with this tool. #**As an example, we have the issue of page= }} the first in this series of blocks (at the moment, I'm not too concerned about the massive increase in block time with the second entry, as talk:Danuhau|diff=11178&oldid=11177}} Danuhau claimed that was an accident). The reason given for this block ("Bad attitude") is rather vague, and the length of time the block is for (3 months) seems a bit disproportionate (a sentiment also echoed by talk:Danuhau|diff=11212&oldid=11194}} all of talk:Danuhau|diff=11223&oldid=11222}} the other talk:Danuhau|diff=11224&oldid=11223}} active users at the time). This alone is questionable enough. However, when talk:Q*terplx|diff=11357&oldid=11117}} Q*terplx asked why he had been blocked, the talk:Q*terplx|diff=11397&oldid=11393}} response he received essentially just said that "admins can block for any reason" and gave no further explanation. Considering how Q*terplx was a right up until he was blocked (and I would assert that said block hurt the wiki as a result), I would expect there to be some very good reasons for such a block, but said reasons have not materialized (and not for lack of asking; several requests for proof were made in this (unfortunately now deleted) forum). In this case, I can't help but conclude that Danuhau did not have the best interests of the wiki in mind when he made this block, regardless of his claims to the contrary. #**Additionally, it appears that something similar to the above has happened again with Boggy B's aforementioned block. From what I can tell, the context for this block is talk:Danuhau|diff=prev&oldid=13711}} this edit on Danuhau's talk page, in which Boggy B claimed to be leaving the wiki. Now, enforcing a user's heat-of-the-moment decision to leave the wiki with an infinite block seems to me like it would be highly inadvisable, as minds can (and, by the looks of the messages Boggy B posted on Community Central, do) change pretty easily. Considering how the user in question was constructive, highly active, and even described by Danuhau himself as "vital to the wiki", I can't really think of a way that him being blocked (especially indefinitely) could be spun as a boon to the wiki. #I also do not believe that Danuhau's attitude towards other users and their edits is particularly healthy for the wiki in. #*To start off with something relatively minor, but still potentially harmful: Danuhau's usage of the on clear good faith edits is a bit disconcerting, as the tool is historically only supposed to be used on vandalism due to leaving no room for an explanatory edit summary. This just seems more likely than not to drive well-meaning users away from the wiki. #*To move onto a somewhat more severe point, we have talk:Danuhau|curid=3232&diff=13823&oldid=13821}} this edit (which is a response to talk:Danuhau|diff=prev&oldid=13821}} this edit, which is in turn a response to talk:Danuhau|diff=prev&oldid=13821}} this). Putting aside the statement about potentially blocking PartHunter for "...wanting to make the wiki messy" (which is clearly not an assumption that is made based on ), I would like to point out that claiming he is "in charge" and saying that people should not do things which he says they should not do (in a case where, I might point out, PartHunter had strong reasons rooted in factual workings of MediaWiki software for his actions) make it sound like Danuhau thinks that he "owns" the wiki, or is acting as a steward for it until Orangitu gets back, or something. I would like to point out that this is a ; the wiki is owned by its community, not any one user or admin, or even any group of users or admins. #As a final point which also features prominently in several of the other points here (especially Q*terplx's block), I would like to express that Danuhau's general lack of willingness to be transparent in several of his actions concerns me. Considering how wikis are based upon giving one's fellow contributors a lot of trust (trusting them enough to assume good faith, for instance), it is a little bit disturbing for Danuhau to say "...I was not obligated to inform you as a random contributor." or "...I am not obligated to give any further reason than the basic formality." (whether there was more info to give or not) to users, even those who have been blocked or those without accounts. In my opinion, this lack of information sharing shows a lack of trust in the community, which in turn breeds a lack of trust in the admin (as shown by this forum existing at all). Hopefully, that was a clear enough write-up of why I believe that Danuhau is not suited to adminship/bureaucratship on this wiki. Thank you for reading. Oscuritaforze (talk) 08:24, October 24, 2014 (UTC) Support #'...' Oppose #'...' Comments *'...'